Preliminary issues in debt recovery proceedings are limited to pure questions of law touching jurisdiction or a statutory bar.

The Tribunal is not ordinarily empowered to try preliminary issues because the scheme of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy legislation excludes the Civil Procedure Code and contemplates summary adjudication, though a jurisdictional issue may exceptionally be taken first. The proposed objections on maintainability, right to sue, consideration for guarantees, the nature of the guarantees, and whether the debt was due were mixed questions of law and fact requiring examination of documents and factual rights, not pure questions of law. Order XIV Rule 2 permits preliminary trial only for a pure question of law involving jurisdiction or a statutory bar; no such defect or bar was shown. The refusal to frame and decide the issues preliminarily was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal has power to decide preliminary issues; (ii) whether the proposed issues are pure questions of law; (iii) whether such issues, even if legal, could be tried as preliminary issues under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal has power to decide preliminary issues.

Analysis: Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy, Insolvency Resolution and Bankruptcy of Individuals and Partnership Firms Act, 1993 excludes the procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and limits the Tribunal to the powers specifically enumerated therein. The statutory scheme is intended to secure expeditious recovery through a summary process. Although the statute does not expressly provide for preliminary issues, the power may be exercised sparingly where the question goes to the root of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Tribunal is not ordinarily empowered to try preliminary issues, but may do so in a rare case where the issue directly affects its jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the proposed issues are pure questions of law.

Analysis: The proposed questions regarding maintainability of the applications, right to sue, consideration for the guarantees, whether the guarantees are tripartite arrangements, and whether the debt is due all depend on examination of the admitted documents and a factual determination of the parties' rights under those documents. The disputes require first ascertaining facts and then applying legal principles to those facts. Issues relating to the alleged deficit court fee had become academic.

Conclusion: The proposed issues are mixed questions of law and fact and not pure questions of law.

Issue (iii): whether such issues, even if legal, could be tried as preliminary issues under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Order XIV Rule 2 permits preliminary trial only where the issue is a pure question of law and relates to jurisdiction or a statutory bar. The petitioners did not demonstrate a jurisdictional defect in the Tribunal or any statutory bar to the proceedings. Since the proposed issues do not satisfy those conditions, they could not be isolated for preliminary trial.

Conclusion: Even if viewed as legal questions, the issues could not be tried as preliminary issues under Order XIV Rule 2.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal to frame and decide the proposed issues as preliminary issues fails, and the Tribunal's approach that the matters required joint adjudication on facts and law was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Preliminary adjudication is confined to pure issues of law touching jurisdiction or a statutory bar, and disputes requiring factual ascertainment from documents cannot be split off for separate trial as preliminary issues.

---